All right, the big moment has come. In the past dozen weeks and a similar number of Internet-related articles,
I have alluded, hinted and clear-stabbed at various trends and hypes that seem to be gripping the modern
browsers. In my Taming Firefox 4 article, we had a brief if heated piece on
Tabs on Top thingie. Firefox came into spotlight again with Aurora, a dev-build, and so did Internet Explorer,
with its version 10 preview.

All right, so time to wrap it all up into a single rant. Today, I want to talk about all the recent technology
changes that are happening in the browser world. Some are good. Others are plain stupid and useless. I'm going
to help you know which are which. It's a war, between logic and beauty.

Tabs on top

Without repeating myself, this is the crown jewel of bluffology. Tabs on top started the entire new era of
simplification that is plaguing everything now. It may have been conceived as an improvement for mobile phones
or netbooks, which started flourishing around the same time, it may have been a uniqueness gimmick by either
Google or Opera, I don't quite remember which one. But it has stayed and it won't die.

I have lambasted the ideology before. Now, let's focus on ergonomics.

Browser element structure hierarchy

Placing tabs on tops means your static browser elements are also included inside tabs. Navigation buttons, as
well as the address bar are there, too. They do not change in any way, which means they do not belong inside
the context of temporary elements like tabs.

We could also argue that browser minimize, maximize and close button could also go into tabs, since after all,
we are breaking the boundary of confinement. The browser loses its structure, it loses the permanent framework
that defines its logic and purpose. For that matter, you could place an embedded media player into a tab,
simply because it could go there.

The side effect of this change, specifically related to Firefox, is the removal of the Status bar at the bottom
of the browser window, which is used for storing extension icons, notifications and download progress. This is
the first and most important reason why including style, so to speak, with content is a wrong idea. The second
aspect is the more popular one.

Visual clutter, vertical space

Conserving vertical space is a noble cause, however again, the secondary market segments seemed to have been
given top priority. Netbooks and smartphones, which have relatively small screens, could benefit from more
content being displayed, which might warrant minimizing browser window borders and display fields in favor of
web pages.

Again, this is a false notion, since people can use only a small part of the content at any given time. You can
read only a small number of lines of text. In theory, three lines of text would have sufficed. However, there's
the matter of spatial reading, claustrophobia and clarity, so you need more. But anything beyond a dozen lines
becomes meaningless in terms of reading.

But we can assume that tabs on top have been designed, and advertised, for people whom reading is not the
primary objective of using the Web browser. Therefore, the focus is on video. So you may want more vertical
space. But this runs contrary to the wide-screen logic. Because wide screens minimize vertical space. Asking
for more of it means you are looking for 4:3 rather than 16:9 aspect ratio. Self-defeating in purpose, it
seems. Newer formats actually mean videos are shorter in height, so the reasoning for increased vertical space
is out of place. Images are also scaled to fit viewable browser space, which means you do not need more of it
to be able to see entire elements.

The only argument left is that of a change for the sake of change. It seems to have worked, as tabs on top are
becoming the new standard. This is wrong on so many levels, but it is impossible to reverse the tide.

Frequent browser releases

This only stands to logic if newer releases feature major changes. Otherwise, we're talking pure press
pressure. Repeat that ten times in a row, fast. Bottom line, Google is doing itself a big marketing favor by
its aggressive release schedule. First, it was there first with this kind of thing, so the strategy is
interpreted as being modern, progressive and unique. Second, since most people judge things by quantity rather
than quality, there's another layer of differentiation in Google's advantage.

All in all, Google did a wonderful stunt. People thought, with so many versions out there, they must be doing
something important. Now, this clearly worked, as both Microsoft and Mozilla are following suit, even if
there's no real justification for this kind of regime.

Now, pumping out releases can be done easily. You merely need to add one line of comment into your binary
source, recompile it, and then:

svn commit firefox.exe -m "added new comment"

Or use git commands, if you prefer.

So now, you have Internet Explorer 10. And there's Aurora. Mozilla is planning to
release a new browser every few weeks, which won't be a bad thing if the entire Mozilla framework keeps pace.
Otherwise, it's going to be a big, botched operation. How come, you're asking?

It's all about extensions. Firefox is the most popular open-source browser, because of its extreme
customizability. In this case, Google followed suit. Opera is lagging behind, partly because there are no
addons to modify the browser.

Firefox extensions are the primary element that makes it so popular. Now, take these away and you lose an
enormous strategic advantage. This is happening with Firefox 4 right now. Even though the browser was released
several weeks ago, many extensions are still incompatible. In fact, I am waiting for the extensions to be fixed
before I can fully switch.

With the new schedule, there's a chance that Firefox 5 might come out even before most extensions are made
capable for Firefox 4. This will create a logistics nightmare. Like I said, the entire framework needs to be in
sync - Firefox AND addons.mozilla.org.

I believe the rapid browser release cycle is justifiable only if there are big technology changes being
introduced and if full backward compatibility can be guaranteed, at least over the span of two consecutive
releases. Google seem to be managing fine. Mozilla needs to sort its game. It's yet to be seen whether
Microsoft can pull a similar stunt.

Browser speed benchmarks

Nothing new, I've molested this subject unto death in the past. Just a brief
reminder. Browser benchmarks are geek e-penis competitions. He who makes the most optimized code wins. The name
of the game: Javascript.

For normal people amongst us, browser benchmarks are as relevant as using OpenMP API specification for parallel programming. In other words, not. Apart from
being irrelevant for daily use, the benchmarks are flawed by design, as they take into account only a tiny
fragment of the overall Internet infrastructure, with most and most critical elements out there, beyond the
reach and control of the user. In the best case, the benchmarks may tell the tester how good their own internal
setup is, nothing at all about actual speed. And if you're suffering from slowness, you've got a bigger problem than the choice of a browser.

This phenomenon has also become a major cornerstone of modern trends. The war initially simmered between Google
and Opera, who went as far as creating a handful of C quality Matrix-style demos. The Norwegians did it with
more panache, I must admit. Mozilla jumped on the bandwagon and throttled up their zeal with the Firefox 4
release. Microsoft is a late and somewhat reserved newcomer, and they are keeping a low profile for the time
being, but things might flare up.

What am I trying to tell you? Well, raw Javascript benchmarking is fine and all that, but it bears virtually no
relevance to continuous, prolonged daily use in a typical home setup, with a thousand sub-optimized settings
and user interference. While a fast release schedule and redesigned ergonomics tricks can be somewhat justified
in the court of people, benchmarks are truly hopeless.

More reading

Some of the bits here might seem disjointed. Which means you probably ought to read the original articles. What
more, this will prove that I'm not after shameless and baseless trolling for the sake of media attention, I'm
actually debating with style and clarity. There are many good things about modern browsers, but still.

It's all part of the grand scheme called Y2K post-traumatic syndrome. Connect the dots. Do you see a pattern?
If you don't, then you are a very happy person indeed.

Conclusion

Across the span of years, you can see a number of trends emerging, shaping the form of the new browser. As
users, we must be critics, too. We must challenge both old and new technologies and concepts. We have the
responsibility to be skeptical and practical, conservative, selfish, demanding, and doubtful, because
ultimately, seemingly whimsical marketing decisions will define the future of computing.

As it seems, browsers are transforming, as I would not quite say evolving, from a portal of information into a
status icon, where code processing speed, weird ergonomics and the frequency of releases determine the quality.
It's almost like progressive art.

All in all, the user experience remains wildly unchanged, so it's not all bad or disruptive. If anything, the
fierce competition has also led to improved standards. The side effect is that of the WOW effect. We just have
to make sure the WOW effect comes second, not first.